Circumcision: Double Standard?

[The Krogan]

Mehhhh didn't hurt me none.

But should people be allowed to decide for themselves?

Hmmmm sure they can decide for themselves, but who's gonna want to go through the hassle and drama of getting circumcised when you're older?

Banning it till a persons older, and they can make their own decision, just seems like a clever way to stop it all together without outright banning it.

Though my line of thinking could be totally wrong.

[Brickistan]

But should people be allowed to decide for themselves?

Hmmmm sure they can decide for themselves, but who's gonna want to go through the hassle and drama of getting circumcised when you're older?

Banning it till a persons older, and they can make their own decision, just seems like a clever way to stop it all together without outright banning it.

Though my line of thinking could be totally wrong.

If they don't want to go through the hassle, then perhaps there was no reason to have it done in the first place. It can't be that important then...

[Oil exporting People]

There's a very big difference between someone choosing for themselves to have surgery and someone having the choice made for them.

And yet, we all have parents who do that for us at first and then governments at both times in other fields.

[Oil exporting People]

Apples and oranges...

Both involve surgery relating to genitals, so a very valid comparison. If the pain is some great evil for children, then the cases of parents allowing their toddlers to begin gender reassignment are just as evil.

[Alyakia]

But should people be allowed to decide for themselves?

Hmmmm sure they can decide for themselves, but who's gonna want to go through the hassle and drama of getting circumcised when you're older?

Banning it till a persons older, and they can make their own decision, just seems like a clever way to stop it all together without outright banning it.

Though my line of thinking could be totally wrong.

if nobody would bother to do it when they're older what does that tell you?

[Fartsniffage]

Apples and oranges...

Both involve surgery relating to genitals, so a very valid comparison. If the pain is some great evil for children, then the cases of parents allowing their toddlers to begin gender reassignment are just as evil.

Is that happening? Are there parents performing gender reassignment surgery on infants? Or are you just making things up?

[Oil exporting People]

if nobody would bother to do it when they're older what does that tell you?

That the work week is long, and other commitments make it harder to find time to do what would be an elective surgery by that point probably not covered by insurance at that time.

[The Krogan]

Hmmmm sure they can decide for themselves, but who's gonna want to go through the hassle and drama of getting circumcised when you're older?

Banning it till a persons older, and they can make their own decision, just seems like a clever way to stop it all together without outright banning it.

Though my line of thinking could be totally wrong.

if nobody would bother to do it when they're older what does that tell you?

That we're to lazy and scared of things going near our penis' to partake in that type of surgery?

[Alyakia]

Apples and oranges...

Both involve surgery relating to genitals, so a very valid comparison. If the pain is some great evil for children, then the cases of parents allowing their toddlers to begin gender reassignment are just as evil.

notice how pretty much everyone is against allowing sexual reassignment surgery for minors! thank for you for the non-point though.

if you find an edge case we're just going to say it's wrong btw and should be/probably is illegal, so don't waste our time. and horomones are not the same as surgery, so again...

[The Hobbesian Metaphysician]

It's more dangerous than the alternative of not doing anything at all. All surgery carries some risks.

Mutilating someone's genitals on religious grounds is hardly pointless. If anything, the matter should be taken seriously, especially sense the child born has absolutely no say over what happens with their body.

On another note, to treat this religious practice as if it were a moral equivalent to a standard medical procedure is outright dishonest.

I firmly believe that if circumcision wasn't in the bible, it would be unheard of in the medical world. The doctor who would have proposed the very idea absent of it's religious context and implications would most likely have been considered either a fraud or a lunatic.

Basically, I have strong opinions concerning this matter.

I am going to call nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... rcumcision

[Ifreann]

There's a very big difference between someone choosing for themselves to have surgery and someone having the choice made for them.

And yet, we all have parents who do that for us at first and then governments at both times in other fields.

Your government makes you have surgery? Where the hell do you live?

[New Benian Republic]

Mehhhh didn't hurt me none.

But should people be allowed to decide for themselves?

[New Benian Republic]

And yet, we all have parents who do that for us at first and then governments at both times in other fields.

Your government makes you have surgery? Where the hell do you live?

Mordor

[Gauthier]

Radium products used to be recommended for medical purposes, as did lead ones.

Look how that turned out.

Coca Cola used to have real cocaine in it too. And then New Coke came out...

[Morr]

A lot of Christians get circumcised nowadays, and that is part of the reason why my parents had me get mine when I was born. Should we not be allowed to get them as well for our children? Even disregarding that, I find it very ironic it is perfectly acceptable to have Transsexual surgery but circumcision is some great evil.

When Christians circumcise their kids, it's purely for aesthetic reasons, not religious.

[Dyakovo]

It's actually better to do it in the first few days after birth when you can't really feel or remember any pain. Contrary to what all the leftist doctors who say it's wrong, there are benefits to the procedure, for males. It reduces risk of cancer in that area. It used to actually be recommended for medical purposes rather than religious ones.

[citation needed]

[Jacobania]

Mutilating someone's genitals on religious grounds is hardly pointless. If anything, the matter should be taken seriously, especially sense the child born has absolutely no say over what happens with their body.

On another note, to treat this religious practice as if it were a moral equivalent to a standard medical procedure is outright dishonest.

I firmly believe that if circumcision wasn't in the bible, it would be unheard of in the medical world. The doctor who would have proposed the very idea absent of it's religious context and implications would most likely have been considered either a fraud or a lunatic.

Basically, I have strong opinions concerning this matter.

I am going to call nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... rcumcision

From your source

It [circumcision] has been variously proposed that it began as a religious sacrifice.

The only point of agreement among proponents of the various theories is that promoting good health had nothing to do with it [circumcision].

In some South African ethnic groups, circumcision has roots in several belief systems.

He [Herodotus] mentions that the alteration of the body and ritual of circumcision were supposed to give access to ancient mysteries reserved solely for the initiated.

Circumcision, according to this source, was a common practice of several religious groups in the ancient world, not just Judaism in particular. Even though the thesis of my previous statement (in bold) may have historical inaccuracies, the overall theme, I believe, has not been adequately refuted.

The theme, of course, being that religion is the primary cause of circumcision's existence in the modern world. Though I will admit that blaming it strictly on one religious affiliation is inaccurate.

Nevertheless, to deny that Christianity hasn't played a major role in the high circumcision rate of America is to ignore the statistics I've previously presented. America, on a global comparison, has a relatively average population, an unusually high circumcision rate, and has a predominately Christian majority.

Knowing that circumcision has no valid or significant purpose in the medical world, origins in religion, and is disproportionately observed in countries with a religious majority when compared with nations of a secular majority.

[Imperializt Russia]

I am going to call nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... rcumcision

From your source

It [circumcision] has been variously proposed that it began as a religious sacrifice.

The only point of agreement among proponents of the various theories is that promoting good health had nothing to do with it [circumcision].

In some South African ethnic groups, circumcision has roots in several belief systems.

He [Herodotus] mentions that the alteration of the body and ritual of circumcision were supposed to give access to ancient mysteries reserved solely for the initiated.

Circumcision, according to this source, was a common practice of several religious groups in the ancient world, not just Judaism in particular. Even though the thesis of my previous statement (in bold) may have historical inaccuracies, the overall theme, I believe, has not been adequately refuted.

The theme, of course, being that religion is the primary cause of circumcision's existence in the modern world. Though I will admit that blaming it strictly on one religious affiliation is inaccurate.

Nevertheless, to deny that Christianity hasn't played a major role in the high circumcision rate of America is to ignore the statistics I've previously presented. America, on a global comparison, has a relatively average population, an unusually high circumcision rate, and has a predominately Christian majority.

Knowing that circumcision has no valid or significant purpose in the medical world, origins in religion, and is disproportionately observed in countries with a religious majority when compared with nations of a secular majority.

This in no way makes it so that it originated for solely religious reasons. As with all traditions, it begins with a reason then the reason is lost and we carry on going through the motions.

Consider the kosher laws, which IIRC were originally put forwards as advice on avoiding sickness, as many foods were ones that would go off quickly. Hence why pork and seafood are so slammed.
In today's world of hygiene and access to medicine, the medicinal benefits of a circumcision are slim to none, that's true. Consider how this is not the case when circumcision originated.

I would consider it highly likely that it originated as a hygiene issue, and was then folded into a symbolic religious meaning. Becoming clean before God or some such. That notion is common amongst many faiths. Islam requires you to remove your shoes to pray, Sikh men must cover their hair, etc.

[Fartsniffage]

I am going to call nonsense.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_o ... rcumcision

From your source

It [circumcision] has been variously proposed that it began as a religious sacrifice.

The only point of agreement among proponents of the various theories is that promoting good health had nothing to do with it [circumcision].

In some South African ethnic groups, circumcision has roots in several belief systems.

He [Herodotus] mentions that the alteration of the body and ritual of circumcision were supposed to give access to ancient mysteries reserved solely for the initiated.

Circumcision, according to this source, was a common practice of several religious groups in the ancient world, not just Judaism in particular. Even though the thesis of my previous statement (in bold) may have historical inaccuracies, the overall theme, I believe, has not been adequately refuted.

The theme, of course, being that religion is the primary cause of circumcision's existence in the modern world. Though I will admit that blaming it strictly on one religious affiliation is inaccurate.

Nevertheless, to deny that Christianity hasn't played a major role in the high circumcision rate of America is to ignore the statistics I've previously presented. America, on a global comparison, has a relatively average population, an unusually high circumcision rate, and has a predominately Christian majority.

Knowing that circumcision has no valid or significant purpose in the medical world, origins in religion, and is disproportionately observed in countries with a religious majority when compared with nations of a secular majority.

America also has one of the only remaining for-profit medical systems in the western world. You don't think that might have a little more to do with it than a religion that doesn't have circumcision as any part of the doctrine?

[Morr]

Nevertheless, to deny that Christianity hasn't played a major role in the high circumcision rate of America is to ignore the statistics I've previously presented.

Circumcision was not common for Christians except in America, and then only in the 20th Century.

Here's what the New Testament says about it;

"For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision"
Titus 1:10

"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision."
Philippians 3:2

"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."
Galatians 5:2-4

"But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."
Romans 2:29

[Soldati Senza Confini]

Nevertheless, to deny that Christianity hasn't played a major role in the high circumcision rate of America is to ignore the statistics I've previously presented.

Circumcision was not common for Christians except in America, and then only in the 20th Century.

Here's what the New Testament says about it;

"For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision"
Titus 1:10

"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision."
Philippians 3:2

"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."
Galatians 5:2-4

"But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."
Romans 2:29

I have to admit that this is pretty much the case and that the above is correct.

In my little country of El Salvador, I never heard of circumcision as a common practice; I mean I had read the Bible, and I thought that circumcision was mostly an abandoned practice for Christians upon reading it. It wasn't until I came to America that I heard about it being done routinely or even a common practice. It was a cultural shock for me, that.

[Morr]

Circumcision was not common for Christians except in America, and then only in the 20th Century.

Here's what the New Testament says about it;

"For there are many unruly and vain talkers and deceivers, specially they of the circumcision"
Titus 1:10

"Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers, beware of the concision."
Philippians 3:2

"Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law. Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."
Galatians 5:2-4

"But he is a Jew, which is one inwardly; and circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, and not in the letter; whose praise is not of men, but of God."
Romans 2:29

I have to admit that this is pretty much the case and that the above is correct.

In my little country of El Salvador, I never heard of circumcision as a common practice; I mean I had read the Bible, and I thought that circumcision was mostly an abandoned practice for Christians upon reading it. It wasn't until I came to America that I heard about it being done routinely or even a common practice. It was a cultural shock for me, that.

Circumcision is replaced by baptism in Christianity. Remarkably, many American Protestants are Baptists, meaning they reject infant baptism because the child is too young to consent*, but they love infant circumcision.

*This obviously doesn't make sense, since if baptism replaced circumcision, it would logically be performed at a young age as a continuance of that.

[Gim]

Circumcision is replaced by baptism in Christianity. Remarkably, many American Protestants are Baptists, meaning they reject infant baptism because the child is too young to consent*, but they love infant circumcision.

*This obviously doesn't make sense, since if baptism replaced circumcision, it would logically be performed at a young age as a continuance of that.

Actually, circumcision is more replaced with keeping the Commandments of God, as shown below:

1 Corinthians 7:19
"For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God."

[USS Monitor]

But should people be allowed to decide for themselves?

Hmmmm sure they can decide for themselves, but who's gonna want to go through the hassle and drama of getting circumcised when you're older?

Banning it till a persons older, and they can make their own decision, just seems like a clever way to stop it all together without outright banning it.

Though my line of thinking could be totally wrong.

That doesn't seem important. Even if it does lead to a situation where most guys are not circumcised, why does that matter?

[Camicon]

Circumcision is replaced by baptism in Christianity. Remarkably, many American Protestants are Baptists, meaning they reject infant baptism because the child is too young to consent*, but they love infant circumcision.

*This obviously doesn't make sense, since if baptism replaced circumcision, it would logically be performed at a young age as a continuance of that.

Actually, circumcision is more replaced with keeping the Commandments of God, as shown below:

1 Corinthians 7:19
"For neither circumcision counts for anything nor uncircumcision, but keeping the commandments of God."

Circumcision was part of the Jews communion with God as laid out in the Old Testament. For Christians, the Old Testament is completely and entirely irrelevant as a "What to do" guide on how to be a good Christian. The New Testament, and more specifically the things directly attributed to Jesus, are the only things which should dictate a "Christian life". Circumcision is not included.